Iraq: To veto or not to veto

By Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent

The difference of view or emphasis about an Iraqi veto between the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has muddied the waters as the allies seek to promote the handover of power on 30 June.

Who will tell them where to go?

The solid front presented by the US and UK in the presentation of their draft UN resolution has already been dented, even though diplomats and officials will scramble to argue that there is no real problem.

Indeed, British officials draw a distinction between the strategic framework which will have to be set by the Iraqi government in consultation with the allies and the operational, in which US and other troops will have the necessary freedom to act.

In the House of Commons, Mr Blair dismissed any suggestion of a rift with Washington.

It seems that each side is stressing what is most important to its own interests.

And these interests do not always coincide these days, as the strains of the occupation begin to show.

For Mr Blair, it means building up the status of the interim government in order to show that it has real power and that the occupation is clearly at an end.

For Mr Powell, it means stressing the traditional American position that US troops take orders from nobody.

Operational leeway

There will probably be a practical solution to this.

While Mr Powell did say that US troops would "do what is necessary to protect themselves", even if that might "not be in total consonance with what the interim Iraqi government might want to do", he also said that they would "take into account" the views of the Iraqi government.

Sieges - such as that of Falluja - could be vetoed, say officials

There is, in fact, no final agreement about the status of the foreign troops which will remain in Iraq under the title of the "multi-national force" (MNF).

The draft resolution presented by the US and UK lays down that the MNF will be under "unified command" - in other words, US and British command.

It also says the force will be able to take "all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq including by preventing and deterring terrorism".

That gives it operational leeway to a considerable extent.

Consent and co-ordination

However, it will also act under two guiding principles.

It will have to have the "consent" of the Iraqi government to be there - and there will have to be "co-ordination" with the Iraqi government about how it operates.

This co-ordination will be laid out in an exchange of letters between the interim government and the coalition before the handover.

If all goes well, the letters could be completed next week, once the government is announced.

'No big deal'

After the handover, security will be under the broad control of an Iraqi National Security Council or Committee chaired by the Iraqi prime minister.

Security problems are unlikely to end with the handover

It is this body which British officials say will be the one which could veto an operation like Falluja.

Mr Powell acknowledged that there would be co-ordinating bodies and suggested that all this was "no big deal".

In practical terms, the US has already moderated its operations, backing down from confrontation in Falluja.

It is unlikely to want to change that approach now.

Its operations against the militia of the militant cleric Moqtada Sadr even appear to have the tacit support of other Shias and the governing council.

In the end, the question of whether to veto or not to veto might not have to be answered.